Marvel Characters at Kings Island

[NormC]

You are again pointing to the irrelevant, abandoned retail concept. All that matters is that "any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted."

That is your interpretation. I don't agree. There was nothing about retail in the section I quoted. It was quoted from the exclusivity section.
Nothing in the contract is abandoned either or we would be reading a new contract.
As I said I will leave it to the Lawyers as it has no effect on my life one way or another. I am not going to argue points I am not an expert in. It just becomes a he said, she said pointless discussion. That is not why I come here so I will leave it to you and seascape to dig at the minutia of the all the legalese in a 20 year old contract. I'm out.

 

[NormC]

I have tried to be tactful. It doesn't work.

Try harder.

 

[doctornick]

You are again pointing to the irrelevant, abandoned retail concept. All that matters is that "any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted."

I guess perhaps the argument is that these are not "theme parks" but rather belonging to a more generalized class of "amusement parks". Would certainly be a very nuanced arguments from lawyers if they used that as the rationale.

 

[seascape]

That is your interpretation. I don't agree. There was nothing about retail in the section I quoted. Nothing in the contract is abandoned either or we would be reading a new contract.
As I said I will leave it to the Lawyers as it has no effect on my life one way or another. I am not going to argue points I am not an expert in. It just becomes a he said, she said pointless discussion. That is not why I come here so I will leave it to you and seascape to dig at the minutia of the all the legalese. I'm out.

I am not going to post on this again until I get an answer on a previous question on Marvels rights to add rides to retail stores. No matter what anyone says on this forum Universal has all the rights and Disney/Marvel have none. There is no point anymore in discussing this when there is and can be no discussion. The only point of agreement here is Universal has exclusive rights to use the Marvel Charachters they are currently using in theme parks east with certain exceptions, which we can not agree on.

 

[asianway]

Interesting. This is apparently a regular thing at Idlewild Park.

Marvel Super-hero Week
July 7-11
Four of the greatest Marvel Superheros of all time will “swing” into Idlewild July 7 – 11. Captain America, Thor, Hulk, and everyone’s favorite web-slinger, Spider-man will meet and greet park Guests daily at the Hillside Theater Stage. Stop by local Eat ‘N Park restaurants to pick up your “super savings” coupon worth $6.00 off the Regular FunDay Admission at the gate. (One coupon good for the entire family per vehicle. Discount cannot be combined with any other offer).

Princesses in the Park
July 14 – 18
Some of your favorite Princesses of all time – Cinderella, Snow White, Beauty, and Rapunzel will be on hand to meet members of your own royal family. Guests can get autographs and take photos with the Princesses from 12 – 6 pm daily, July 14 – 18 at the Hillside Theater. You can also help other families of the kingdom who are in need by bringing a canned food item to receive a $6.00 discount off of the Regular $38.99 plus tax FunDay Admission at the gate. (One can per person. Discount cannot be combined with any other offer).

The fact they aren't "Disney" princesses tell me a lot

 

[lazyboy97o]

That is your interpretation. I don't agree. There was nothing about retail in the section I quoted. It was quoted from the exclusivity section.
Nothing in the contract is abandoned either or we would be reading a new contract.
As I said I will leave it to the Lawyers as it has no effect on my life one way or another. I am not going to argue points I am not an expert in. It just becomes a he said, she said pointless discussion. That is not why I come here so I will leave it to you and seascape to dig at the minutia of the all the legalese in a 20 year old contract. I'm out.

It is not an interpretation. Both sections you quoted were specifically about the Marvel Action Universe, Marvel's then "planned Retail concept which may include interactive elements as a major or minor element." You seem to be confusing THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (the theme park land) with The Marvel Action Universe (the retail concept).

I guess perhaps the argument is that these are not "theme parks" but rather belonging to a more generalized class of "amusement parks". Would certainly be a very nuanced arguments from lawyers if they used that as the rationale.

Possible, but I would still bet on these events not being fully authorized. Disney really is not keen on just letting others borrow their characters.

 

[JediMasterMatt]

Ouimet does "get it". While Cedar Fair doesn't seem to value "theme" in their amusement parks, they do get the importance of the guest experience. Under Ouimet, Cedar Fair finds ways to make money will putting guests first. Something Disney does not seem concerned with these days.

I think Matt still cares about theme and show. Banshee at KI is a good example of this. While it is foolish to ever think that regional theme park chains can compete on an even playing field as Disney/Universal/or even Busch when it comes to themeing, they can smartly use their funds to put synergy into focusing their attractions brand. Banshee uses it's minimal themeing to effectively add a bit more story than just a generic ride.

The same park, KI, contains a perfect example of where the regional parks can lose focus on what their target should be - Tomb Raider. When Paramount put that attraction in, way too much money and effort was put into "show" and when that was added to a ride system (Huss Giant Top Spin) that was untested and ultimately failed, the entire project was wasted. A much better value for the park is putting more into the ride and less on the themeing.

Speaking of the "little" guy fighting the "big" boys, the best example in the industry of this is Holiday World. The late Will Koch was an absolute genius in the way he steered this small southern Indiana theme park into world wide acclaim. He was fantastic at getting the most out of any investment; but, what was really special about him was that he created a new style of "theme park". This theme wasn't the concious one that is a park with various lands themed after different holidays. No, the real genius was his creation of a new "theme" that superceded that - the theme of "family". Holiday World's rapid fire success was putting their guests at ease by making them feel at home. Free parking, free unlimited soda, free sunscreen, advertising the park using himself and his mother as the spokespeople, working hard at making sure every employee knew how important customer service was. He realized that if you make the park comfortable, you could earn repeat business. Once you did that you earned the positive word of mouth that comes from it which then starts the process all over again with new guests.

I have massive respect for what Will was able to accomplish. In an era where the small time family owned parks were closing and finding it hard to compete against the giants, he used the small park's disadvantage to turn the tables and used the family as the greatest strength.

 

[NormC]

It is not an interpretation. Both sections you quoted were specifically about the Marvel Action Universe, Marvel's then "planned Retail concept which may include interactive elements as a major or minor element." You seem to be confusing THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (the theme park land) with The Marvel Action Universe (the retail concept).

Again it IS your interpretation and I believe you to be wrong but I do not want to further argue the point. If you read and comprehend the contract UNI only has the rights in the MARVEL UNIVERSE section of their SECOND GATE. (Capitalization taken from contract, not for raising my voice). The contract is about the MARVEL UNIVERSE and its part in the SECOND GATE and UNIs use of Marvel's IP in the MARVEL UNIVERSE.

As part of THE SECOND GATE, within a separate environment designated under the banner of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (or similar designation approved by Marvel) MCA will construct a complex of attractions, stores and food venues heavily themed around the Marvel properties. Marvel hereby grants MCA a license to use Marvel’s characters for the purposes, on the terms and to the extent set forth herein.

You may now have the last word.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again it IS your interpretation and I believe you to be wrong but I do not want to further argue the point. If you read and comprehend the contract UNI only has the rights in the MARVEL UNIVERSE section of their SECOND GATE. (Capitalization taken from contract, not for raising my voice). The contract is about the MARVEL UNIVERSE and its part in the SECOND GATE and UNIs use of Marvel's IP in the MARVEL UNIVERSE.



You may now have the last word.

That has nothing to do with the exclusivity exceptions you posted that were in regards to a planned retail concept.

 

[danlb_2000]

Again it IS your interpretation and I believe you to be wrong but I do not want to further argue the point. If you read and comprehend the contract UNI only has the rights in the MARVEL UNIVERSE section of their SECOND GATE. (Capitalization taken from contract, not for raising my voice). The contract is about the MARVEL UNIVERSE and its part in the SECOND GATE and UNIs use of Marvel's IP in the MARVEL UNIVERSE.

.

I think you are still missing something here. You quoted this which applied only the "The Marvel Action Universe"

"a.Restrictions as to the geographic location of The Marvel Action Universe in areas where MCA has exclusive rights hereunder.
i.The Marvel Action Universe will not be within 60 miles of any Universal Theme Park with a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE
ii.Mini-theme parks, recreation centers, game centers and the like designated with the Marvel name or the name of any Marvel characters or any major entertainment component of a Marvel Action Universe such as a motion based film ride shall not be within 60 miles of any Universal Theme Park with a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE.
iii.Within the ADI market of the city containing a Universal Theme Park (even to the extent such ADI exceeds a 60 mile radius) there shall not be a Marvel themed simulator ride."

The "The Marvel Action Universe" is defined in the contract as:

"
4.
To the extent and in the territories that MCA has exclusive theme park rights, such shall not prohibit (except for the limitations described below) Marvel from itself developing or licensing its planned Retail concept which may include interactive elements as a major or minor element (presently intended to be called “The Marvel Action Universe” and referred to as such herein"

 

[NormC]

And did you read my line above that quote? I actually said this was the part I questioned.

The first quote in that post was not from that section though.

 

[seascape]

Again it IS your interpretation and I believe you to be wrong but I do not want to further argue the point. If you read and comprehend the contract UNI only has the rights in the MARVEL UNIVERSE section of their SECOND GATE. (Capitalization taken from contract, not for raising my voice). The contract is about the MARVEL UNIVERSE and its part in the SECOND GATE and UNIs use of Marvel's IP in the MARVEL UNIVERSE.

You may now have the last word.

Since you tried again I will post the entire section on EXCLUSIVITY

IV. EXCLUSIVITY



A. Exclusivity of Marvel Characters Within THE MARVEL UNIVERSE:

1. Within THE SECOND GATE, the Marvel Characters will be primarily utilized as part of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, although they may also be used throughout THE SECOND GATE as strollers or featured elements in stores, restaurants, and the like (subject to Marvel’s reasonable approval). Within THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, the use of any non-Marvel characters will be subject to Marvel’s approval.

B. Other Theme Parks

1. MCA (or an MCA “Corporately Related Company” (defined below)), shall have an option to utilize the Marvel characters in THE SECOND GATE of the

Universal Theme Park (Orlando) and an exclusive world-wide option to utilize the Marvel characters in additional THE MARVEL UNIVERSES in any other Universal Theme Parks, which initial option must be exercised during the two year period beginning on the date of the opening of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in the Universal Theme Park (Orlando). The present inventory of the Marvel characters is set forth in the schedule to be attached or provided by Marvel promptly after execution hereof, plus any characters developed or acquired or licensed in the future by Marvel which (x) are marketed under the Marvel “Banner” or (y) were previously marketed under the Marvel “Banner” during the term hereof and are subsequently marketed under the “Banner” of a Marvel Related Company (defined below). Any characters which are licensed to Marvel by third parties subject to terms which require Marvel to pay a license fee based on revenues or which do not permit sublicensing may be excluded, at Marvel’s option, in the foregoing grant.

a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:

1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows:

i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family” (e.g., any member of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, THE AVENGERS or villains associated with a hero being used) is more than an incidental element of an attraction, is presented as a costumed character, or is more than an incidental element of the theming of a retail store or food facility; and, (y) in addition, if such character or another character from the same “family” is an element in any MCA marketing during the previous year. Any character who is only used as a costume character will not be considered to be “being used by MCA” unless it appears as more than an incidental element in MCA’s marketing.]

ii. West of The Mississippi - any other theme park may use any Marvel characters whether or not used by MCA.

iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

iv. East or West of The Mississippi - The foregoing permitted uses will be subject to the following marketing restrictions:

(a) If the particular character is used by MCA (as defined above), such character will not be advertised or promoted East of The Mississippi, except by means of national Network buys of television, within printed materials such as brochures, or by print advertisements in periodicals directed to readers more than 300 miles from Orlando; and with regard to any of the foregoing permitted marketing, if the marketing is for a group of theme parks located both East and West of The Mississippi, the marketing shall make abundantly clear that the character only appears in the parks West of The Mississippi and shall not be subject to confusion on such point (such as would occur by visual inclusion of the character in a generic, multipark advertisement subject to a small print explanation of the parks where the character is present).

(b) If the particular character is not used by MCA, such character will not be advertised or promoted by means of (x) spot television buys, billboards, personal appearances, or print advertisements which are (y) viewed, located or primarily directed to persons within 300 miles of Orlando. In other words, regional (i.e. covering a multi-state geographic region) or national television or print media buys, or brochures would not be prohibited within such 300 mile radius.

2. Within 2 years after opening of THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in Orlando, MCA may retain its worldwide exclusivity for up to 5 additional years by designating another location where it intends to develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as part of a theme park, and by paying an option fee of $*** per year. Provided such second theme park opens within such 5 year period, MCA shall maintain worldwide exclusivity for an additional two year period after such opening, and thereafter its rights will be subject to the “shrinkage” or “expansion” concept described above (in the manner described below).

As used throughout this agreement, any subsequent THE MARVEL UNIVERSE must cost at least $*** (calculated in the manner described previously), must appear in a Universal Theme Park, and Marvel’s representation therein will be of at least comparable proportion and like quality to its representation (including as to the retail exposure and promotional efforts of MCA) within THE SECOND GATE at Universal City Florida.

i. With regard to the second and subsequent Universal Theme Parks in the areas specified below, MCA’s exclusivity shall be as follows:

a. Second U.S. Park - all of U.S.

b. Any of Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mainland China, Taiwan, North or South Korea, Vietnam, or Thailand, exclusivity will apply to all others.

c. Europe Park - all Europe, including Turkey, but excluding any areas that were part of the former USSR.

ii. With regard to subsequent Universal Theme Parks in areas other than as described in (i) above, the parties will in good faith agree upon comparable geographic provisions to the “East of the Mississippi” provisions applicable to the Orlando Universal Theme Park. Thereafter, the above “shrinkage” or “expansion” provisions shall continue to apply to all such future Universal Theme Parks described in this subsection (ii). If after opening any subsequent Universal Theme Park MCA does not institute the option payments within 2 years, continue the option payments, and open such newly designated subsequent Universal Theme Park within 5 years thereafter, its rights shall be permanently “shrunk”, and it will have no further right to build any new THE MARVEL UNIVERSE.

3. Any THE MARVEL UNIVERSE constructed hereunder after THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (Orlando) shall be subject to the payment and other relevant terms of this agreement applicable to THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (Orlando), except as to CPI increases as set forth herein.

4. To the extent and in the territories that MCA has exclusive theme park rights, such shall not prohibit (except for the limitations described below) Marvel from itself developing or licensing its planned Retail concept which may include interactive elements as a major or minor element (presently intended to be called “The Marvel Action Universe” and referred to as such herein, but which may also be called “The Marvel Universe” or another name chosen by Marvel). The Marvel Action Universe will consist, inter alia, of the sale of comic books, trading cards, software, licensed or Marvel produced merchandise, the use of electronic games and/or pinballs or other coin operated games, and may include one or more virtual reality and/or simulator ride using Marvel characters or other themes. The following restrictions shall apply to The Marvel Action Universe (or elements thereof whether owned or licensed by Marvel).

a. Restrictions as to the geographic location of The Marvel Action Universe in areas where MCA has exclusive rights hereunder.

i. The Marvel Action Universe will not be within 60 miles of any Universal Theme Park with a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE

ii. Mini-theme parks, recreation centers, game centers and the like designated with the Marvel name or the name of any Marvel characters or any major entertainment component of a Marvel Action Universe such as a motion based film ride shall not be within 60 miles of any Universal Theme Park with a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE.

iii. Within the ADI market of the city containing a Universal Theme Park (even to the extent such ADI exceeds a 60 mile radius) there shall not be a Marvel themed simulator ride.

b. Restrictions as to elements of The Marvel Action Universe in areas where MCA has exclusive rights hereunder.

i. Within 300 miles of any Universal Theme Park with a THE MARVEL UNIVERSE, no The Marvel Action Universe shall contain more than one simulator, nor shall such simulator hold more than 20 people. Motion based or virtual reality attractions which are coin operated and hold no more than 4 people shall not be deemed a “simulator” subject to the above restriction. Any such rides which are interconnected so as to create a simultaneous experience among multiple units exceeding an aggregate of 4 people shall be deemed simulator rides and the number of people in such interconnected rides shall be counted toward the 20 person limit above.

c. Restrictions as to affiliations or marketing of The Marvel Action Universe or elements thereof, in areas where MCA has exclusive rights hereunder.

i. The Marvel Action Universe will not be within any theme park, nor marketed in conjunction with any theme park. For purposes of these restrictions, an area of 10 acres or less will not be deemed a theme park. An area in excess of 10 acres may or may not be deemed a theme park based on its overall characteristics.

ii. No The Marvel Action Universe will be marketed so as to infer or imply that such THE MARVEL ACTION UNIVERSE or one of its components (x) constitutes a theme park or (y) is a component of a theme park.

iii. No The Marvel Action Universe shall be in or marketed in conjunction with any themed entertainment areas owned, operated or marketed by Disney, Time-Warner, Six Flags, Sony, Paramount or Busch. As used herein, “theme park” and “themed entertainment areas” shall not include, inter alia, facilities or complexes where at least 70% of the revenues generated on the premises are derived from retail sales or whose primary source of revenue is lodging (which may include food, beverage and gaming revenues).

d. Pre-Existing Conditions in areas where MCA has exclusive rights hereunder.

The restrictions set forth in subparagraphs a and b above shall not apply to any The Marvel Action Universe or elements thereof which already “Exists” on the “Trigger Date” (both defined below) and would be thereafter impacted by subparagraphs a and b above due to the creation of a new THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in a Universal Theme Park. However, no such Marvel Action Universe shall be materially enhanced in relation to any otherwise prohibited element (except as to matters of governmental compliance and general refurbishment and updating) after the opening of such new THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in a Universal Theme Park. For purposes of this subsection the following definitions shall apply:

(x) A Marvel Action Universe (or otherwise prohibited element) shall be deemed to “Exist” if it is (a) open for business or (b) a lease has been executed or a contract for purchase of land has been executed (in either case for a site for a The Marvel Action Universe) and Marvel is diligently proceeding to develop and open such The Marvel Action Universe.

(y) The “Trigger Date” for any THE MARVEL UNIVERSE is the date hereof as to Orlando and,as to any subsequent THE MARVEL UNIVERSE in a Universal Theme Park, the later of the date on which (i) THE MARVEL UNIVERSE at the Universal Theme Park (Orlando) opens for business or (ii) MCA has announced development and paid the $*** (as adjusted by CPI) option fee relating to such new THE MARVEL UNIVERSE as set forth in Section IV(B)(1)(a)(2).

If Marvel is actively operating and/or developing The Marvel Action Universes in the 60 mile radius or ADI of any such newly announced THE MARVEL UNIVERSE at a Universal Theme Park, at the time of such announcement by MCA, Marvel may request MCA to consider, in good faith, modifying those terms of this subsection which limit Marvel’s enhancement and/or development of The Marvel Action Universes in such 60 mile area or ADI, although MCA shall be under no obligation to change the restrictions herein.


If it were a clear case of exclusive right then of the other clauses wouldn't be in there. Can we please agree on that.

 

[rioriz]

This thread makes me

 

[NormC]

That has nothing to do with the exclusivity exceptions you posted that were in regards to a planned retail concept.

The exclusivity part quoted was not from the action universe section. The action universe section I quoted at the end of my post was the section I questioned.

 

[danlb_2000]

I am not going to post on this again until I get an answer on a previous question on Marvels rights to add rides to retail stores. No matter what anyone says on this forum Universal has all the rights and Disney/Marvel have none. There is no point anymore in discussing this when there is and can be no discussion. The only point of agreement here is Universal has exclusive rights to use the Marvel Charachters they are currently using in theme parks east with certain exceptions, which we can not agree on.

I actually agree with you on this. I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this line:

"iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing. "

What is meant by "specific"? Personally I believe "specific" is anything not denied by that the first section:

i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family”

 

[seascape]

I actually agree with you on this. I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this line:

"iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing. "

What is meant by "specific"? Personally I believe "specific" is anything not denied by that the first section:

i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family”

Now we are getting somewhere. If we can agree that they can use them in some form, then we can get to the issue in which I think KI may have gone too far. They used the word Marvel in their add above. I do not think they had the right to do that. That is something that Universal should be able to address with KI but Disney did have the right to let them use the charachters. That specific issue does not mean they could not use them just the way they advertised them.

 

[seascape]

This is the section that kept Disney from using the advertising on the monorail.

iii. No The Marvel Action Universe shall be in or marketed in conjunction with any themed entertainment areas owned, operated or marketed by Disney, Time-Warner, Six Flags, Sony, Paramount or Busch. As used herein, “theme park” and “themed entertainment areas” shall not include, inter alia, facilities or complexes where at least 70% of the revenues generated on the premises are derived from retail sales or whose primary source of revenue is lodging (which may include food, beverage and gaming revenues).

 

[lazyboy97o]

I actually agree with you on this. I think it all comes down to the interpretation of this line:

"iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing. "

What is meant by "specific"? Personally I believe "specific" is anything not denied by that the first section:

i. East of The Mississippi - any other theme park is limited to using characters not currently being used by MCA at the time such other license is granted. [For purpose of this subsection and subsection iv, a character is “being used by MCA” if (x) it or another character of the same “family”

I think it is more because Universal was given the choice to use any and all characters. Marvel cannot make a deal for all characters not in use by Universal, but only for specific characters not in use.

This is the section that kept Disney from using the advertising on the monorail.

iii. No The Marvel Action Universe shall be in or marketed in conjunction with any themed entertainment areas owned, operated or marketed by Disney, Time-Warner, Six Flags, Sony, Paramount or Busch. As used herein, “theme park” and “themed entertainment areas” shall not include, inter alia, facilities or complexes where at least 70% of the revenues generated on the premises are derived from retail sales or whose primary source of revenue is lodging (which may include food, beverage and gaming revenues).

No, it is not because that, again, is in regards to the retail concept.

 

[seascape]

I think it is more because Universal was given the choice to use any and all characters. Marvel cannot make a deal for all characters not in use by Universal, but only for specific characters not in use.


No, it is not because that, again, is in regards to the retail concept.

I hate to say it but you are wrong. Maybe this will help.

IV. EXCLUSIVITYIV. EXCLUSIVITY
B. Other Theme Parks
1. MCA (or an MCA “Corporately Related Company” (defined below)), shall have an option to utilize the Marvel characters in THE SECOND GATE of the
a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:
1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows:
iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

It is clearly under exclusivity theme parks. I know contracts can be difficult and each sections has subsections and clauses.

Add on for the monorail. The monorail was for advertising.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I hate to say it but you are wrong. Maybe this will help.

IV. EXCLUSIVITYIV. EXCLUSIVITY
B. Other Theme Parks
1. MCA (or an MCA “Corporately Related Company” (defined below)), shall have an option to utilize the Marvel characters in THE SECOND GATE of the
a. After such 2 year period, MCA’s exclusive rights will be subject to “shrinkage” or “expansion” as follows:
1. If no action is taken by MCA, such exclusivity shall be limited as follows:
iii. East or West of The Mississippi - permitted uses shall be limited to the use of specific Marvel characters and Marvel may not permit a licensee to use the name “Marvel” as part of the attraction name or marketing.

It is clearly under exclusivity theme parks. I know contracts can be difficult and each sections has subsections and clauses.

Add on for the monorail. The monorail was for advertising.

I'm familiar with the section and the organization of the contract. What you quoted was about The Marvel Action Universe. If you read the description of that project it is included under EXCLUSIVITY because the project was going to include theme park like elements that would have different limitations and exceptions to Universal's theme park exclusivity. That doesn't mean anything and everything else also has those exceptions. There was never a proposal to turn the monorails into a retail concept such as The Marvel Action Universe and meet and greets are not a retail concept. They could enter a theme park because Universal has the theme park rights, not because Disney cannot have a retail concept. It does not matter how many times the same clauses are quoted over and over, The Marvel Action Universe is not a generic and general exception, but a specific and defined concept.